Grand View Private Trust Company Ltd v Wong; Wang intervening
Jurisdiction | Bermuda |
Judge | Clarke P,Smellie JA,Subair Williams JA |
Judgment Date | 20 April 2020 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal 2019 No 5A |
Court | Court of Appeal (Bermuda) |
Date | 20 April 2020 |
[2020] Bda LR 29
In The Court of Appeal for Bermuda
Clarke P; Smellie JA; Subair Williams JA
Civil Appeal 2019 No 5A
and
and
and
Mr M Howard QC, Mr J Adkin QC and Mr C Luthi for the Appellant
Ms E Talbot Rice QC, Mr D Hagen QC and Mr R Attride-Stirling for the Respondents
Mr R Wilson QC and Ms F Rana-Fahy for the 1st Intervenor
Mr K Rowley QC and Mr M Watson for the 2nd Intervenor
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Eclairs Group v JKX Oil & Gas Plc [2016] 3 All ER 641
Marley v Rawlings [2015] AC 129
Richards v Wood & Wood [2014] EWCA Civ 327
Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619
Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Service Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2016] AC 742
In re Dyer [1935] VLR 273
Re Ball's Settlement Trust [1968] 1 WLR 899
Wyndham v Egremont; Re McCullagh's Will Settlement [2018] NI Ch 15
Duke of Somerset v Fitzgerald [2019] EWHC 726
Re Courage Group's Pension Schemes v Imperial Brewing Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 495
Bank of New Zealand v Board of Management of the Bank of New Zealand Officers Provident Association [2003] UKPC 38
Hole v Garnsey [1930] AC 472
Kearns v Hill (1990) 21 NSWLR 107
Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWCA 201
Mercanti v Mercanti [2016] WASCA 206
Re Anloma Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1818
Re Z Trust [1997] CILR 248
Mirvac v Mirvac Funds [1999] NSWSC 457
Society of Lloyd's v Robinson [1999] 1 WLR 756
British Airways v Airways Pension Scheme Trustee Ltd [2018] Pens LR 19
Mackinnon v Regent Trust [2004] JLR 477
Tao v HSBC International Trustee [2019] HKCFI 1268
PNPF Trust Co Ltd v Taylor & Ors [2010] EWHC 1573
Commissioner of Taxation v Barwanna [2012] HCA 11
Dalriada Trustees Ltd v Faulds [2012] ICR 1116
Jenkins v Ellett [2007] QSC 154
Cachia v Westpac Financial Services Ltd [2000] FCA 161
Howard Smith v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974] AC 821
Re Manisty's Settlement [1974] Ch 17
Edge v Pensions Ombudsman [2000] Ch 602
Vatcher v Pault [1915] 1 AC 372
Re Shiu Pak Nin [2014] (1) CILR 173
Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24
Serco Ltd v Lawson [2006] ICR 250
Duke of Bedford v Marquess of Abercorn (1836) 1 My & Cr 312
Re Dilke [1921] 1 Ch 34
Re Triffitt's Settlement [1958] Ch 85
Re Harvey dec'd [1950] 1 All ER 491
Schmidt v Rosewood Trust [2003] 2 AC 714
Accurate Financial Consultants Pty Ltd v Koko Black Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 86
Re A Trust [2012] JRC 066
Re C Trust [2012] JRC 088B
HSBC International Trustee Ltd v Poon [2014] JRC 254A
Re Lawrence's Will Trusts [1972] AC 481
Davis v Richards & Wallington Industries Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1511
Kain v Hutton [2008] NZC 61
Briggs v Gleeds [2015] Ch 42
Coats UK Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd v Styles [2019] EWCA 35
Re Wightwick [1950] 1 Ch 260
Addition of beneficiary to trust — Transfer of trust assets — Whether addition and transfer was within the power to add a beneficiary — Fraud on the power — Remoteness of vesting
Topic | Page No. |
JUDGMENT of Clarke P | 3 |
Introduction | 3 |
The Facts | 4 |
The History | 4 |
Developments in the early 2000s | 5 |
The Establishment of the Wang Family Trust and the GRT | 5 |
GRT No 1 | 6 |
The Wang Family Trust | 6 |
Developments in 2005 | 7 |
The Addition of Grand View as a Beneficiary | 7 |
The Key Provisions of the GRT | 9 |
The Claim in the Action | 10 |
The Judgment | 10 |
Bank of New Zealand | 15 |
The Parties' Submissions | 20 |
The Appellants | 20 |
The substratum rule | 22 |
Other cases relied on by the judge | 23 |
Authorities not cited to the judge | 25 |
The Respondents' submissions | 28 |
British Airways v Airways Pension Scheme Trustee | 29 |
Commissioner of Taxation v Bargwanna | 32 |
Grand View's other cases | 35 |
The Respondents' conclusion | 37 |
Discussion | 38 |
The scope of the power | 42 |
The Purpose of the Power | 42 |
Conclusion | 50 |
Remoteness of Vesting | 51 |
The Judge's View | 54 |
Grand View's submissions | 55 |
Conclusions on clause 9 | 57 |
Conclusions on remoteness of vesting | 59 |
Disapplication of clause 9 | 60 |
SMELLIE JA: | 62 |
The Implication of Terms | 65 |
Remoteness of vesting | 66 |
SUBAIR WILLIAMS JA: | 67 |
The Fraud on a Power Doctrine and ‘the Substratum Doctrine’ | 67 |
Cases decided under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 do not assist | 70 |
There is no sub-stratum doctrine in law or equity | 71 |
Remoteness of Vesting | 73 |
JUDGMENT of Clarke P
1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether the execution by the Trustee of the Global Resource Trust (“GRT”) of a power contained in the Trust Deed to add a beneficiary to which it then transferred the whole of the assets of the Trust was valid or, as Kawaley AJ held on an application under Order XIV of the RSC, invalid as being beyond the power of the GRT Trustee. The assets of the GRT consisted of shares worth over US $560 million. The case raises fundamental issues as to the scope of powers of amendment contained in Trust Deeds and of the doctrine of “fraud upon a power”1.
2. Wang, Yung Ching (YC Wang), who died on 15 October 2008, and Wang, Yung Tsai (YT Wang), who died on 27 November 2014, (together “the Founders”), were brothers, who were born into a poor family. In 1954 YC Wang founded Fu-Mao Plastics Corporation which later changed its name to Formosa Plastics Corporation. In 1958 YT Wang joined him in the business. This led in due course to the formation of a group of companies called the Formosa Plastics Group (“FPG”), of which YC Wang was the Chairman, which became, and remains, one of the largest conglomerates in Taiwan. The assets of the GRT Trust consisted of an indirect interest in shares in FPG companies.
3. The Wang Family Tree is extensive. One of YC Wang's sons, by his second wife, was Wong, Wen-Young, also known as Winston Wong (“Dr Wong”). Dr Wong is a plaintiff in the action, and hence a respondent, together with Wong, Ray-Tseng, known as Riley Wong, Dr Wong's grandson and YC Wang's great-grandson. Dr Wong has four half-sisters, children of YC Wang's third wife, including Susan and Sandy Wang.
4. YT Wang had five children by his first wife. They are William, Wilfred, Sarah, Jennifer and Hsiueh-Kuang Wang (hereafter “the first family”). He had three children by his second wife who are, to use their common abbreviations, Tony, Tammy and Janis Wang (hereafter “the second family”). Dr Wong and the second family take a diametrically opposing view to that of YC Wang's children by his first wife as to the correctness of the judgment below.
5. The evidence of Susan Wang2, which I summarise in this and the following paragraphs, is that the Founders felt strongly that, whenever possible, one must give back to society. They regarded FPG itself as one of their greatest legacies to Taiwanese society and, also, made very substantial sums available to establish a number of higher education institutions, hospitals and other charitable foundations. Her understanding, based on many conversations with YC Wang, her father, YT Wang, her uncle and Mr Wen-Hsiung Hung (“Mr Hung”), a close friend and confidant of YC and YT Wang, over the years until their respective deaths, was that the ownership of various holding companies established in Liberia and the BVI (“the Holding Companies”), which owned shares in FPG companies (worth in the year 2000 around US $1.8 billion), one of which was Grid Investors Corp (“Grid Investors”), had been entrusted to Mr Hung on the basis that he would use them for such purposes as might be directed by the Founders.
6. These purposes included the continued holding and purchase of shares in the FPG companies in order to assist the perpetuation of FPG and to provide funding for the charitable foundations which the Founders had established. By 2000 FPG had become very successful and the Founders extremely wealthy in their own right. By 2008 FPG was one of the largest conglomerates in Taiwan.
7. YC Wang had made clear to Susan Wang that neither of the Founders intended that the assets in the Holding Companies should ultimately form part of their estates upon their death – specifically they did not wish to leave these assets to their heirs by way of inheritance. Her father indicated to her that the Founders' wishes were that those assets should be applied towards the perpetuation of FPG and the fulfilment of the Founders' vision of giving back to society. The Founders hoped that their descendants would assume the role of caretakers or managers of that wealth for the greater good of society.
8. By the summer of 2000 the Founders had turned their attention to succession planning. This included making arrangements to perpetuate and formalise the basis on which the Holding Companies would be held over the long term, and to put in place structures that would subsist long after the Founders and Mr Hung had died. Ultimately it was decided that a significant proportion of assets should be placed into a Bermuda Purpose Trust, which ultimately led to the creation in May 2001 of the Wang Family Trust (see [10] ff below). The Founders' original idea was that a single Bermuda Purpose Trust would be established to hold the FPG shares, whose purposes would include the continuous growth and prosperity of FPG and the support of the Founders' various charitable foundations. At that time the Founders also had in mind that the trust would make provision for those family members who served as directors of the company which was to be the trustee of the proposed Bermuda Purpose Trust to benefit personally in some very limited way. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Michele Alexia Canham v Cutty Sark Land Company
...principles should be derived from, inter alia, the Court of Appeal for Bermuda's decision in Grand View Private Trust Co Ltd v Wong [2020] Bda LR 29paras 97–102, 185–191 (per Clarke P). In oral argument, Mr McPherson QC referred extensively to Sir Christopher Clarke's comprehensive leading ......
-
The Poulton Family Trust Between: (1) Michele Alexia Canham (2) James Alexander Poulton (3) Nicholas James Poulton (4) James Michael Poulton (5) Daisy Elizabeth Houghton-Poulton Plaintiffs v (1) Cutty Sark Land Company (2) Deborah McMullan Poulton (3) Wilson Malcolm McMullan (4) Christine Jane McMullan (5) Cayman National Trust Company Ltd (6) CNT (Nominees) Ltd Defendants
...principles should be derived from, inter alia, the Court of Appeal for Bermuda's decision in Grand View Private Trust Co Ltd v Wong [2020] Bda LR 29paras 97–102, 185-191 (per Clarke P). In oral argument, Mr McPherson QC referred extensively to Sir Christopher Clarke's comprehensive leading ......
-
Re The X Trusts
...495 at [13] to [17] and (b) the contextual analysis commended by Sir Christopher Clarke in Grand View Private Trust Company v Wong et al[2020] Bda LR 29 at paragraphs 178–179. 114. In the present case the relevant instruments are substantially expressed in the same terms with the Protector ......
-
Wong v Grand View PTC Ltd and Ors
...1 WLR 770 Kicks v Leigh [2015] 4 All ER 329 Kunicki v Hayward [2017] 4 WLR 32 Re Key [2010] 1 WLR 2020 Grand View PTC Ltd v Wong and Ors [2020] Bda LR 29 Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619 High Commissioner for Pakistan v Prince Mukkaram Jah & Ors [2016] WTLR 1763 KXL et al v Murphy and the So......